Park Service: Managing for Results Could Strengthen Accountability
(Letter Report, 04/10/97, GAO/RCED-97-125).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed: (1) the process used
by the National Park Service to develop budgets and establish operating
priorities; (2) the limitations, if any, of the agency's
priority-setting processes at a sample of parks; (3) what, if any,
implications the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) has for
the Park Service; (4) information on trends in cutbacks of visitor
services at the parks; and (5) the funding levels for park operations
compared with those for other federal land management agency operations.
GAO noted that: (1) while headquarters plays a key role in formulating
requests for increases to the Park Service's operating budget, decisions
about spending and operating priorities associated with park operating
funds are delegated to the individual park managers; (2) as a result,
the individual park managers have broad discretion in deciding how to
spend park operating funds; (3) these decisions have been difficult
because, while park budgets have been rising, the costs of operating the
parks have also been rising in response to factors such as required pay
and benefit increases; (4) as a result, spending decisions made by park
managers frequently involve trade-offs among competing demands within
the parks for activities such as resource management, visitor services,
or maintenance; (5) the most significant limitation associated with the
Park Service's decentralized priority-setting and accountability systems
is that they lack a focus on the results achieved with the funds spent;
(6) according to the park managers GAO spoke with, regional or
headquarters staff rarely, if ever, discussed with them operating
priorities or the results accomplished with the funds provided; (7) key
components needed to hold park managers accountable are missing; (8) no
expectations have been established for the goals that are to be achieved
in the parks, and there is no process for measuring progress toward
these goals; (9) GPRA offers the Park Service an opportunity to improve
its system of accountability; (10) the Park Service is currently
implementing GPRA and plans on issuing its strategic plan, which will
extend through fiscal year 2002, in the spring of 1997; (11) information
is not available from the Park Service to determine agencywide trends in
cutbacks of visitor services; (12) each of the four parks that GAO
visited has reduced its visitor services to some degree over the past 5
years; (13) however, it is important to note that the cuts in visitor
services were relatively small compared with the reductions in other
park activities, such as maintenance and administration; (14) spending
on operations by the Park Service has increased in real terms by about
30 percent since 1985; (15) similarly, the operating budgets of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service has grown by about 28 percent over the same
period; and (16) the Bureau of Land Management's and the Army Corps of
Engineers' operating budgets have increased by 5 percent and 3 percent,*
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-97-125
TITLE: Park Service: Managing for Results Could Strengthen
Accountability
DATE: 04/10/97
SUBJECT: National recreation areas
National parks
National historic sites
Historic preservation
Natural resources
Land management
Strategic planning
Accountability
Maintenance (upkeep)
Budgeting
IDENTIFIER: Great Smoky Mountains National Park
Independence National Historical Park (PA)
Olympic National Park (WA)
Yellowstone National Park (WY)
Yosemite National Park (CA)
Gateway National Recreation Area (NY)
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to Congressional Requesters
April 1997
PARK SERVICE - MANAGING FOR
RESULTS COULD STRENGTHEN
ACCOUNTABILITY
GAO/RCED-97-125
Park Management Accountability
(141013)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
BLM - Bureau of Land Management
COE - Corps of Engineers
FS - Forest Service
FWS - Fish and Wildlife Service
GAO - General Accounting Office
GPRA - Government Performance and Results Act
NPS - National Park Service
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-276619
April 10, 1997
Congressional Requesters
The National Park Service within the Department of the Interior is
the caretaker of many of this nation's most precious natural and
cultural resources. The agency's mission, as mandated by the
Congress, is to provide for the public's enjoyment of these resources
while preserving and protecting them for the enjoyment of future
generations. The 374 units that now make up the national park system
cover over 80 million acres and are estimated to serve over 265
million visitors annually. The park system is continuing to grow and
includes a diverse mix of sites, ranging from natural areas such as
Yellowstone and Yosemite national parks to urban areas such as
Gateway National Recreation Area in Brooklyn, New York, to national
battlefields, national historic sites, and national preserves.
In recent years, the Park Service has received increased funding for
the operation of the national park system. At the same time,
however, many parks have cut back different activities. In light of
these conditions, you were concerned about how the Park Service sets
priorities and how it decides which activities will be cut back.
Accordingly, you asked us to (1) describe the process used by the
Park Service to develop budgets and establish operating priorities;
(2) determine the limitations, if any, of the agency's
priority-setting processes at a sample of parks; (3) determine what,
if any, implications the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) has for the Park Service; (4) provide information on trends in
cutbacks of visitor services at the parks; and (5) compare funding
levels for park operations with those for other federal land
management agency operations.
Our work focused on reviewing the Park Service's processes for
budgeting and setting operating priorities at headquarters, four
regional offices, and four parks.\1 While this sample of park units
may not be representative of the system as a whole, our work provides
useful insights into the Park Service's priority-setting and
budgeting processes.
--------------------
\1 The four parks included in our analysis are Great Smoky Mountains
National Park, Independence National Historical Park, Olympic
National Park, and Yellowstone National Park.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
While headquarters plays a key role in formulating requests for
increases to the Park Service's operating budget, decisions about
spending and operating priorities associated with park operating
funds are delegated to the individual park managers. As a result,
the individual park managers have broad discretion in deciding how to
spend park operating funds. These decisions have been difficult
because, while park budgets have been rising, the costs of operating
the parks have also been rising in response to factors such as
required pay and benefit increases. As a result, spending decisions
made by park managers frequently involve trade-offs among competing
demands within the parks for activities such as resource management,
visitor services, or maintenance. The most significant limitation
associated with the Park Service's decentralized priority-setting and
accountability systems is that they lack a focus on the results
achieved with the funds spent. According to the park managers we
spoke with, regional or headquarters staff rarely, if ever, discussed
with them operating priorities or the results accomplished with the
funds provided. Key components needed to hold park managers
accountable, such as processes for setting results-oriented
expectations or monitoring outcomes, are missing. No expectations
have been established for the goals that are to be achieved in the
parks, and there is no process for measuring progress toward these
goals. As a result, the agency lacks a means to monitor progress
toward achieving its goals and to hold park managers accountable for
the results of park operations.
GPRA offers the Park Service an opportunity to improve its system of
accountability. GPRA is designed to hold federal agencies more
accountable for their performance by requiring them to establish
performance goals, measures, and reports that provide a system of
accountability for results. It requires each federal agency to
develop, no later than September 30, 1997, strategic plans that cover
a period of at least 5 years. The Park Service is currently
implementing GPRA and plans on issuing its strategic plan, which will
extend through fiscal year 2002, in the spring of 1997. GPRA can
also provide the Congress and the Park Service with a powerful
vehicle for communicating and clarifying expectations about what the
agency can achieve with the funding the Congress provides.
Therefore, consultations between the Congress and the Park Service on
the agency's strategic plan are critical.
Information is not available from the Park Service to determine
agencywide trends in cutbacks of visitor services. Each of the four
parks that we visited has reduced its visitor services to some degree
over the past 5 years. The extent of these cutbacks varied from park
to park. However, the most extensive cutbacks occurred in 1996. For
example, in 1996, Great Smoky Mountains National Park closed several
campgrounds to park visitors. These conditions are consistent with
our past work, which showed significant cutbacks in visitor services
between 1985 and 1993 at 11 of the 12 parks we visited.\2 However, it
is important to note that the cuts in visitor services were
relatively small compared with the reductions in other park
activities, such as maintenance and administration.
Spending on operations by the Park Service has increased in real
terms by about 30 percent since 1985. Similarly, the operating
budget of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has grown by about 28
percent over the same period. The operating budgets of the other
federal land management agencies have grown more slowly or declined
since 1985. The Bureau of Land Management's and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers' operating budgets have increased by 5 percent and 3
percent, respectively while the U.S. Forest Service's operating
budget has decreased by 24 percent.
--------------------
\2 National Parks: Difficult Choices Need to Be Made About the
Future of the Parks (GAO/RCED-95-238, Aug. 30, 1995).
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
The Park Service's mission has dual objectives. On one hand, the
agency is to provide for the public's enjoyment of the resources that
have been entrusted to its care. This objective involves providing
for the use of the parks by supplying appropriate visitor services
(such as campgrounds and visitor centers) and infrastructure (such as
roads and water systems) to support these services. On the other
hand, the Park Service is to protect the resources so that they will
be unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. Balancing
these dual objectives has long shaped the dialogue about how best to
manage the national park system.
In the past few years, the dialogue about how best to manage the park
system has taken on a new dimension. While the Congress and the
executive branch have been working under increasingly tight budget
constraints, the national park system has continued to expand--35
parks have been added since 1985. In addition, the Park Service
estimates that its maintenance backlog, including the costs of
general maintenance and rehabilitation to existing facilities and
roads, exceeds $4 billion.\3 One of the ways the Park Service has
dealt with these conditions is to cut back or curtail visitor
services in many parks. These cutbacks and curtailments in services
have led to concerns about how the agency is being
managed--particularly about how priorities are set within the agency.
--------------------
\3 Agency officials acknowledge that they do not know the precise
dollar amount of the total maintenance backlog.
PARKS SET PRIORITIES THROUGH
THE BUDGETING PROCESS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
Most of the funding for the Park Service is for park operating
budgets. For fiscal year 1997, the Park Service was appropriated
about $1.5 billion. Of this, about $1.2 billion was appropriated to
cover the operation of the park system--including the headquarters
and regional offices. About 80 percent of the operating funds go
directly to the parks to cover the costs of their day-to-day
operations. This operating budget is the primary funding source for
any park. At the park level, it is generally referred to as the base
budget.
The process for formulating park operating budgets is incremental.
This process begins with the prior year's budget as a base and
focuses priority setting on requests for increases to the prior
year's base budget. Requests for operating increases primarily take
two forms: mandatory pay increases and specific increases for
individual parks--some for new or higher levels of ongoing operating
responsibilities, such as law enforcement, and others for one-time
projects, such as the rehabilitation of a historic property.
Headquarters takes the initiative in requesting the funding for all
required pay increases on a servicewide basis. However, for
park-specific increases, the parks compete against one another for
limited funds through their regional and headquarters hierarchy.
Thus, the formal priority-setting process focuses primarily on
marginal increases to last year's budget--not on the priorities of
ongoing park activities.
While headquarters plays a key role in formulating requests for
increases to the Park Service's budget, decisions about spending and
operating priorities associated with a park's base budget are
delegated to the park managers. The superintendent--the chief park
official--at each of the 374 park units reports to one of several
regional directors, each of whom reports to headquarters. However,
upon receiving their budget allocation for base operations, the
superintendents exercise a great deal of discretion in setting
operational priorities. Many of the park officials we spoke with
stressed the importance of this decentralized, park-based
decision-making structure, under which park managers plan and execute
their budget with as little involvement from regional and
headquarters managers as possible. Park Service officials at all
levels within the agency maintained that park-level managers were in
the best position to plan activities at their park and make decisions
about priorities and spending on a day-to-day basis. Hence, regional
and headquarters officials generally do not get involved in
priority-setting and spending decisions for parks. Typically, these
decisions involve trade-offs among four categories of spending: (1)
visitor services (e.g., opening a campground), (2) resource
management (e.g., monitoring the condition of threatened species or
water quality), (3) maintenance needs (e.g., repairing a trail), and
(4) park administration and support (e.g., updating computer systems
or attending training).
In fiscal year 1997, about 70 percent of the Park Service's operating
budget is allocated for personnel services--salaries and benefits of
park employees. The remaining 30 percent is allocated for items such
as utilities, contracted services, equipment, training, travel, and
supplies. As a general rule, the higher the proportion of personnel
to nonpersonnel costs, the less flexibility an agency has to reduce
costs in the short term when budgets are tight. Further limiting the
Park Service's flexibility is the large proportion--93 percent--of
staff who are permanent employees. Because so many staff are
permanent, the parks cannot reduce costs by reducing the largest
component of their operating costs--salaries and benefits--during
off-peak seasons. At the four parks we visited, the percentage of
the park budget dedicated to salaries and benefits ranged from about
75 percent at Yellowstone National Park to about 85 percent at
Olympic National Park.
Park personnel costs will increase annually with required pay and
benefit increases and other administrative actions. To the extent
that a park's budget does not increase at the same rate as its
personnel costs, the park must absorb some or all of the increase in
salaries and benefits. For example, Independence's budget increased
from $10.42 million in fiscal year 1994 to $10.64 million in fiscal
year 1996--an increase of $220,000. However, during this 2-year
period, salaries and benefits increased by $376,000 and an
administratively required salary enhancement program for park rangers
cost an additional $455,000.\4 As a result, during this period the
increase in the park's funding did not cover the increase in salaries
and benefits, and the park had to absorb over $610,000 in cost
increases. Similarly, at Yellowstone, from fiscal year 1993 through
fiscal year 1996, the park's funding increased by $2 million while
mandatory salary and nonsalary components, such as utility costs,
rose by about $4 million--requiring the park to absorb about $2
million in increased costs over 3 years. At Great Smoky Mountains,
from 1994 through 1996, the operating cost increases for personnel
alone were more than twice as great as the funding increases.
Since park budgets consist primarily of salaries and benefits,
absorbing costs can be very difficult without reducing personnel.
Parks frequently try to reduce spending for training, travel, and
some supplies, but these costs are only a minimal part of their
budget. In some cases, parks have had to make further cuts to absorb
increases, either by not hiring seasonal employees or by not filling
the positions of permanent employees who resign or retire. In either
case, having fewer workers means that some activities will not be
performed. For example, in 1996, Great Smoky Mountains absorbed
increases in costs by hiring fewer seasonal staff. As a result, park
managers chose to close two backwoods campgrounds for that year
because there were not enough maintenance staff to clean and maintain
them. Yellowstone also absorbed increased costs in 1996 and had to
cut back on a number of activities, including the operation of a
campground and two museums. During the same year, Olympic eliminated
six seasonal law enforcement ranger positions. According to park
officials, this cutback delayed the response time to park incidents.
The officials also told us that reductions in resource protection
patrols resulted in the accumulation of 50 to 100 tons of trash and
litter that washed up on the Olympic coast during the winter months.
Superintendents typically face numerous trade-offs in making spending
decisions. For example, in 1996, Yellowstone faced several competing
demands--several of which it was not able to fund. Providing the
same levels of activities in 1996 as were provided in 1995 would have
cost the park about $2 million more than it was provided. The
additional costs were due to mandated increases for items such as
employee background investigations, employee salaries and benefits,
and increased water and sewage testing. To offset these increased
costs, the park managers reduced spending for travel, training, and
supplies; permitted several permanent and seasonal staff positions to
lapse; and closed a campground and two nearby museums. Our past work
has shown that such trade-offs occur frequently at many parks in the
system.\5
--------------------
\4 We previously reported that in fiscal year 1994 the Park Service
requested and the Congress approved an upgraded civil service
classification for rangers.
\5 See footnote 2.
PRIORITY SETTING AND
ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS LACK A
FOCUS ON RESULTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
Although park managers need flexibility to effectively manage their
park, accountability for the results achieved with the funds spent is
also important. There is nothing inherently wrong with a
decentralized management system or with delegating decisions about
spending and operating priorities to park managers. However, the
park managers we spoke with indicated that they rarely, if ever,
discussed with regional or headquarters staff their park's operating
priorities or the results accomplished with the funds spent. Under
these conditions, the current decentralized priority-setting and
accountability systems lack a focus on the results that were
achieved.
Our prior work has shown that a good system of accountability would
include elements such as (1) a process for establishing expectations
for accomplishments, (2) a means of measuring progress against
expectations, and (3) a means of holding managers responsible for
achieving agreed-upon progress.\6 Park Service officials told us that
park superintendents set annual performance expectations with their
regional director and are held accountable for meeting these
expectations. However, park officials also told us these agreements
generally focused on accomplishing tasks, such as completing a park's
general management plan, rather than on accomplishing measurable park
goals, such as inventorying and evaluating the condition of cultural
resources.
Officials at the four parks we visited indicated that few, if any,
reviews of or agreements on their annual operating priorities had
taken place between regional or headquarters offices and the park.
Officials at the four regional offices responsible for the four parks
indicated that it was up to the parks to establish operating
priorities and said that they did not get involved in setting park
priorities. (These four regional offices are responsible for over
275 park units--or over three-fourths of the total number of parks.)
Under this system, key components needed to hold superintendents
accountable are missing. Without expectations about the goals that
are to be achieved in the parks, a means for measuring progress
toward these goals is not in place. As a result, the agency's
ability to determine or ensure that the desired results are achieved
is diminished.
The parks we visited had a variety of planning documents that
described critical needs within each park. However, the documents
did not establish expectations for addressing these needs or provide
for measuring the progress achieved during the year. Furthermore,
the needs described in the planning documents were generally not
linked to the budget process or to currently available budgetary
resources. As a result, critical issues that are expressed as
priorities in planning documents may not be funded when spending
decisions are made.
In the current fiscal climate of tight budgets, it is particularly
important for a decentralized agency like the Park Service to have a
good system of accountability. If a park, regional office, and
headquarters agree on expectations, goals, and results and measure
the park's progress against these expectations, then the agency will
have a better system for holding park managers accountable for how
park funds are spent. Furthermore, with such a system, the Park
Service would be better able to understand and communicate what is
being done and what is being accomplished with the agency's operating
funding on a year-to-year basis. Such a system of accountability
would be consistent with the goals of GPRA. The Park Service has an
opportunity to employ the basic tenets of GPRA to strengthen its
system of accountability.
--------------------
\6 See Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist Congressional and
Executive Decision-making (GAO/T-GGD-97-43, Feb. 12, 1997) and
Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance
and Results Act (GAO/GGD-96-118, June 1996).
GPRA PROVIDES A FRAMEWORK TO
IMPROVE ACCOUNTABILITY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
GPRA is designed to hold federal agencies more accountable for their
performance by requiring them to establish performance goals,
measures, and reports that provide a system of accountability for
results. It requires each federal agency to develop, no later than
September 30, 1997, strategic plans that cover a period of at least 5
years. Beginning with fiscal year 1999, agencies are required to
prepare annual performance plans with annual goals that are linked to
the goals in the strategic plan. They must then measure their
performance against the goals they have set and report publicly on
how they are progressing against their expectations. The Park
Service has prepared a draft strategic plan that covers the 5-year
period from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2002.
Implementing GPRA involves three key steps: (1) setting expectations
by developing strategic plans that define the mission, goals and
desired outcomes for an agency; (2) measuring progress or performance
against these expectations; and (3) using information on performance
as a basis for deciding whether progress has been achieved. As
strategic plans are developed, agencies are required to consult with
the Congress and consider the views of other stakeholders.
GPRA CAN HELP IMPROVE
ACCOUNTABILITY WITHIN THE
PARK SERVICE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1
Accountability for results is especially important for an agency like
the Park Service, which sets priorities and develops budgets at the
park unit level. Under this decentralized management structure,
individual park managers can make decisions about park operations
that may or may not be consistent with the agency's mission,
priorities, or goals.
By implementing GPRA, the Park Service can improve accountability
because each unit of the national park system, each program, and the
agency as a whole will be developing long-term and short-term plans
laying out what is to be accomplished over prescribed periods of
time.\7 For example, according to Park Service officials, each of the
374 units in the national park system will be required to develop
strategic and annual performance plans that state what each park is
expected to accomplish. The performance of each park unit will then
be measured against its annual expectations, and both the Congress
and the agency can then use this information to assess that park's
progress towards meeting the established expectations. The
performance of the agency's programs and of the agency as a whole
will also be assessed using this same kind of process. As this
process is implemented, the agency's priorities should become more
clearly defined.
By focusing on what is being accomplished and sharing this
information with the Congress and other stakeholders, the Park
Service can promote a better understanding of (1) the agency's and
each park's priorities, (2) the links between the agency's and each
park's priorities, (3) the results achieved with the funds provided,
and (4) the shortfalls in performance. In short, greater
accountability could be achieved because managers would be held more
directly accountable for the results of their decisions.
--------------------
\7 GPRA requires cabinet-level departments to develop strategic
plans. The Department of the Interior has chosen to develop
strategic plans for each of its bureaus, including the Park Service.
The Park Service, in turn, has asked individual parks to develop
long- and short-term plans that tie into its overall strategic plan.
THE PARK SERVICE HAS BEGUN
TO IMPLEMENT GPRA
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2
The Park Service is now in the process of implementing GPRA. In
October 1996, the agency issued the final draft of the National Park
Service Strategic Plan. This plan includes the Park Service's
mission statement, overall goals, and 5-year goals expressed as
measurable outcomes that link managers' performance to such outcomes.
Since then, the agency has developed and is now implementing a GPRA
training program for its employees so that park-level staff can
develop measurable goals that tie into the servicewide strategic plan
and begin to measure their progress in achieving these goals.
In the spring of 1997, the Park Service plans to issue the final
version of its strategic plan, which will set forth its mission,
long-term goals, and means of measuring progress towards achieving
these goals. Furthermore, in September 1997, the individual parks
are expected to establish the strategic and annual performance plans
needed to implement the agency's strategic plan.
GPRA'S IMPLEMENTATION RAISES
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.3
Successfully implementing GPRA can provide the Congress and the Park
Service with a powerful vehicle for communicating and clarifying
expectations about the agency's mission and long-term goals.
Therefore, consultations between the Congress and the Park Service on
the agency's strategic plan are critical. As we recently testified,
successful consultations (1) include agency officials who have
programmatic knowledge and authority to revise the plan, (2) occur
after the parties have reached agreement on the depth and scope of
the issues to be discussed, and (3) provide an iterative process for
improving the strategic plan.\8
Furthermore, because the Park Service is decentralized and provides
broad discretion to park managers, it faces significant challenges in
implementing a top-down accountability system such as that called for
by GPRA. To fully integrate GPRA's management approach, Park Service
managers must begin to define in measurable terms how activities at
their park contribute toward achieving the servicewide goals
established in the Park Service's strategic plan. In this regard,
our prior work has shown that one of the key challenges facing the
parks is the development of the baseline data that are needed to
measure progress in achieving goals.\9
Sustained congressional attention to federal agencies' implementation
of GPRA would underscore the importance that the Congress attaches to
the success of this process. Both the Congress and all executive
branch agencies have a large stake in making the legislation work.
Successful implementation will provide the Congress and the Park
Service with the management framework and much of the information
needed to focus on what is being accomplished with the money provided
to the agency, make the hard financial decisions dictated by the
current fiscal environment, and improve the ability of the Park
Service to deliver its services more effectively and efficiently.
--------------------
\8 Managing for Results: Enhancing the Usefulness of GPRA
Consultations Between the Executive Branch and Congress
(GAO/T-GGD-97-56, Mar. 10, 1997).
\9 See footnote 2.
EXTENT OF CUTBACKS IN SERVICES
IS UNKNOWN
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
We attempted to determine the extent of the Park Service's reductions
in visitor services over the past 5 years. The extent of such
reductions agencywide is unknown because the Park Service does not
routinely track data on national trends in the level of visitor
services or other activities provided in the parks. Our work showed
that each of the four parks had reduced visitor services at various
times over the past 5 years. Moreover, as we reported in 1995,
reductions in visitor services have been occurring in many other
parks since at least as far back as 1985.\10 In 1995, we reported
that there were significant cuts in visitor services at 11 of the 12
park units we reviewed.
According to the Comptroller of the Park Service, the headquarters
office does not routinely track cutbacks in visitor services because
park superintendents are responsible for managing their park,
including making decisions on visitor services, and therefore are in
the best position to weigh the trade-offs in reducing operations at
their park. Nevertheless, in 1996, in response to a congressional
inquiry, the headquarters office attempted to obtain information from
park units on such reductions and their effects on visitors and
resources for fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 1996. The Park
Service's records indicated that over 50 parks reported significant
cuts in visitor services during fiscal year 1996. The Park Service
attributed all of the identified cuts to funding shortages. Examples
of cuts in visitor services include the elimination of lifeguard
services at some park recreational areas, reduced operating hours or
the closure of visitor centers, and the closure of some campgrounds.
However, our review showed that some of the data obtained were not
accurate and that another attempt by headquarters in January 1997 to
obtain updated information on reductions in park operations for
fiscal year 1997 produced incomplete results. In the absence of this
kind of overall trend information on cutbacks in visitor services, we
collected the information at each of the four parks we visited.
--------------------
\10 See footnote 2.
ALL FOUR PARKS REDUCED
VISITOR SERVICES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1
Over the past 5 years, each of the four parks that we visited reduced
visitor services. The extent of such reductions varied among the
parks during fiscal years 1993 through 1997, although they were most
extensive in fiscal year 1996.\11 However, in considering the amount
and scope of cuts in visitor services it is important to consider
this information in the full context of overall park operations.
Park managers made the cuts in visitor services as part of a broader
effort to match park spending with available funds. In each of the
four parks, the cutbacks in visitor services were a relatively small
portion of the overall reductions in park operations. Most of the
cutbacks occurred in areas such as park maintenance, resource
management, and park administration. For example, as noted earlier
in this report, in 1996 Yellowstone needed to absorb about $2 million
in increased costs. Of this amount, $72,000, or about 3 percent,
came from reductions in the operations of visitor service facilities,
including a campground and two museums. The rest came from
reductions in other park operations. Increased operating funds
allowed the park to reopen these visitor service facilities in 1997.
Although the proportions differ, similar scenarios played out at the
other parks we visited.
The following summarizes the cuts in visitor services imposed by the
four parks during the most recent 5-year period:
-- In 1996, Great Smoky Mountains National Park closed three
campgrounds during the winter months and two smaller campgrounds
for the whole year. In addition, the park closed one of its
visitor centers and staffed two others with uniformed personnel
for only 5 hours per day.
-- In 1996, Yellowstone National Park cut several visitor services,
closing a campground, visitor center, and two museums. In
addition, the park did not fund 10 law enforcement positions and
eliminated several guided hikes.
-- Independence National Historical Park closed several historic
buildings to visitors and reduced visiting hours at several
other buildings for 3 of the 5 years reviewed.
-- Olympic National Park made several cuts in visitor services
during each of the past 5 years, including reducing visitor
center hours, shortening campground seasons, not opening two
entrance stations and backcountry trails, and providing fewer
law enforcement patrols and interpretative programs.
Appendix I provides more detailed information on the four parks' cuts
in visitor services.
--------------------
\11 Fiscal year 1996 featured not only the budgetary pressures from
efforts to reduce the deficit but also numerous continuing
resolutions and two funding lapses that closed portions of the
government, including the national park system.
PARKS ATTEMPTED TO MINIMIZE
THE IMPACT OF TIGHT BUDGETS
ON VISITOR SERVICES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.2
Overall, park managers have tried to minimize the impact of
operational cutbacks on visitors. According to park managers and
records at the four parks we reviewed, visitor services were
generally the last areas to be cut. In all four parks,
administrative costs for items such as training, travel, and supplies
were reduced; maintenance was deferred; positions went unfilled; and
other discretionary programs, such as resource management, were
reduced before cuts were made in visitor services. Some park
managers told us that the services that were cut were selected
because their loss would affect the fewest visitors to the parks.
For example, at Great Smoky Mountains, three major campgrounds were
closed in 1996 during the winter months--a period of lower
visitation. Also, other campgrounds were available both inside and
outside the park. A visitation survey conducted at Great Smoky
Mountains during the summer of 1996 showed that 90 percent of the
visitors rated visitor services as good or very good. At
Independence, historic buildings that normally received less
visitation were closed or operating hours were reduced so that
Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell--the two historic structures
that received the most visitation--could operate for extended hours
during the summer. At Olympic, park managers told us, the park
deferred purchases of supplies and equipment, such as vehicles,
radios, and computers, as well as employee training, before cutting
visitor services. Similarly, Yellowstone cut supplies and equipment,
travel, training, and other administrative activities before cutting
visitor services.
OPERATING BUDGET HAS GROWN MORE
FOR PARK SERVICE THAN FOR MOST
OTHER FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT
AGENCIES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
Spending on operations by the Park Service has increased in real
terms by about 30 percent since 1985.\12 This increase is comparable
to the increases for the Fish and Wildlife Service (28 percent) and
for federal domestic discretionary spending as a whole (27 percent)
but is higher than those for the other federal land management
agencies we examined. For example, operations spending by the Bureau
of Land Management and the Corps of Engineers increased by 5 and 3
percent, respectively. In contrast, real spending for the Forest
Service's operations has decreased by 24 percent since 1985. Table I
shows the changes in spending for these agencies' operations from
fiscal year 1985 through fiscal year 1997 (estimated).
Table 1
Federal Land Management Agencies'
Spending for Operations, Fiscal Years
1985-97
(In millions of 1992 constant dollars)
Agency 1985 1997\a Change
---------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------
Corps of Engineers $1,681.5 $1,739.2 3.4%
Forest Service $1,607.4 $1,215.7 -24.4%
Park Service $812.5 $1,052.3 29.5%
Bureau of Land Management
$666.7 $702.1 5.3%
Fish and Wildlife Service $435.9 $557.4 27.9%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Spending is defined as gross obligations.
\a Obligations for fiscal year 1997 are estimated.
Source: President's budget, fiscal years 1987-98.
The increase in Park Service spending reflects, in part, an increase
in the agency's responsibilities. From 1985 through 1996, the number
of park units increased from 339 in 1985 to 374. In addition, the
boundaries of some existing parks expanded, so that total area
managed increased from 79 million to 83 million acres. Other
additions to the Park Service's operating responsibilities include an
increase in visitation, from an estimated 216 million to 266 million
visitors per year, plus requirements for protecting newly designated
endangered species and for complying with new regulatory mandates,
such as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990, and more stringent water quality standards.
During the same period, from 1985 through 1996, the responsibilities
of the other federal land management agencies we reviewed also grew
(see app. II). The number of wildlife protection units managed by
the Fish and Wildlife Service increased from 582 to 702, and the area
managed by the agency increased from 90 million to 92 million acres.
In addition, the number of visitors to Fish and Wildlife units
increased from 24 million to 29 million. At the Bureau of Land
Management, while the number of acres managed decreased from 337
million to 264 million, the estimated number of visitors increased
from about 52 million to 59 million. The number of acres managed by
the Corps of Engineers changed little. However the number of
visitors to the Corps' recreational sites increased from 172 million
to 212 million. The acreage managed by the Forest Service grew
little, and the number of units managed by the Forest Service
declined slightly. However, the estimated number of visitors
increased dramatically, from 541 million in 1985 to 830 million in
1996.
We gathered this information to provide a gross indication of whether
other federal land management agencies were growing as much as the
Park Service. Accordingly, caution must be used in interpreting the
data on visitation and acreage and in making comparisons across
agencies. One official we spoke with suggested that visitation data
from the 1980s tended to be inflated and counting techniques varied
greatly across agencies and units within agencies. Also, the
influence of visitation and acreage on operating costs may vary
greatly from agency to agency and from unit to unit within an agency,
depending on how the public land is used and what types of facilities
are in place.
--------------------
\12 To adjust the agencies' spending over the period examined, we
used the Gross Domestic Product implicit price deflator developed by
the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8
Balancing the need to protect and preserve park resources for future
generations while at the same time meeting the needs of hundreds of
millions of park visitors is, at best, a difficult task. Achieving
this balance is made even more difficult by the tight fiscal climate
now facing the Park Service and other federal agencies. Managing the
national park system under these circumstances requires making
choices among competing operating priorities. Within the Park
Service, these choices are delegated to the individual park managers
and typically involve trade-offs in funding resource management
activities, visitor services, or park maintenance. In a
decentralized organization that gives managers a great deal of
decision-making authority, having a system in place to hold them
accountable for the results of their decisions is critical. However,
today, the Park Service lacks a system that holds park managers
accountable for the results of their decisions. Under GPRA, the Park
Service has begun to establish servicewide goals for the park system.
The next task will be for the Park Service to begin measuring the
individual parks' progress in achieving these goals. Implementing
GPRA can both assist the Congress and the Park Service in reaching
agreement on goals and expectations for the agency and help hold the
individual parks accountable for achieving their goals.
The transition to results-oriented management in the Park Service
will be neither easy nor quick. But GPRA's implementation has the
potential for improving the agency's performance--a particularly
vital goal when resources are limited and public demands are high.
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9
We provided a draft of this report to the Park Service for review and
comment. We met with Park Service officials--including the Associate
Director for Operations and the Comptroller. The agency generally
agreed with the conclusions and the principal findings of the report
and provided several clarifying comments that we incorporated where
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.1
To respond to your request and agreements reached with your offices,
we met with officials from the Park Service's headquarters office and
from Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Independence National
Historical Park, Olympic National Park, and Yellowstone National
Park. We also obtained and reviewed pertinent documentation from
these officials. We conducted our review from January through March
1997 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Appendix III provides a more detailed discussion of our
objectives, scope, and methodology.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report
until 15 days from the date of this letter. At that time, we will
send copies of this report to interested congressional committees and
Members of Congress; the Secretary of the Interior; the Director of
the National Park Service; and other interested parties. We will
make copies available to others upon request.
Please call me at (202) 512-3841 if you have any questions on matters
discussed in this report. Major contributors to this report are
listed in appendix IV.
Sincerely yours,
Victor S. Rezendes
Director, Energy, Resources,
and Science Issues
List of Requesters
The Honorable Robert Livingston
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
The Honorable John R. Kasich
Chairman, Committee on the Budget
House of Representatives
The Honorable Don Young
Chairman, Committee on Resources
House of Representatives
The Honorable Ralph Regula
Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior and
Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
The Honorable James V. Hansen
Chairman, Subcommittee on National
Parks and Public Lands
Committee on Resources
House of Representatives
VISITOR SERVICES CUT AT THE FOUR
PARKS VISITED
=========================================================== Appendix I
Great Smoky Independence
Mountains National Olympic National Yellowstone
Fiscal year National Park Historical Park Park National Park
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
1993 \a Nine historic Two entrance Law enforcement
buildings closed stations not patrols and
to visitors for opened interpretative
3 to 7-1/2 programs reduced
months Hours and
seasons at
visitor centers
and campgrounds
shortened
Law enforcement
patrols and
interpretative
programs
reduced
Trail
maintenance
deferred
1994 \a \a Some Law enforcement
improvement, but patrols and
visitor services interpretative
such as programs reduced
campgrounds,
interpretation
activities, and
law enforcement
patrols operated
at the reduced
1993 level
1995 \a \a Several Law enforcement
interpretative patrols and
programs cut interpretative
programs reduced
Visitor center
hours reduced
Campground
season
shortened
Law enforcement
patrols reduced
1996 One visitor Three historic Campground Norris Geyser
center closed buildings still season shortened Basin campground
and converted to closed to and several closed (116
a bookstore visitors and campgrounds sites)
operating hours closed during
Three major cut in half for the winter One visitor
campgrounds five other center closed
closed during buildings Many backcountry
winter trials closed Two museums
closed
Two small Law enforcement
campgrounds patrols reduced Law enforcement
closed patrols and
interpretative
Two visitor programs reduced
centers staffed
with uniformed
personnel only 5
hours per day
1997\b One major Same cuts as for Law enforcement No new cutbacks
campground still fiscal year 1996 patrols and
closed during interpretative
winter programs reduced
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a No significant cuts in visitor services. However, during this
5-year period, all four parks reduced other personnel costs, cutting
seasonal employees, furloughing permanent employees or cutting
temporary employees, and not filling vacant positions. These
personnel cuts could affect visitor services.
\b Cutbacks for fiscal year 1997 are as of March 1997.
GROWTH IN FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT
AGENCIES' RESPONSIBILITIES
========================================================== Appendix II
Table II.1
Visits Reported by Federal Land
Management Agencies, Fiscal Years 1985-
96
(Visits in millions)
Agency 1985 1996 Change
---------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------
Forest Service 540.9 829.8\a 53.4%
Park Service 216.0 266.0 23.1%
Bureau of Land Management 51.7 59.0 14.1%
Fish and Wildlife Service 24.0 29.1 21.3%
Corps of Engineers 172.3\b 211.9 23.0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Caution must be used in interpreting data on visitation when
making comparisons across agencies. Officials we spoke with and
agency documents noted that visitation data from the 1980s tended to
be inflated and counting techniques varied greatly across agencies
and units within agencies. Also, the influence of visitation on
operating costs may vary greatly from agency to agency and from unit
to unit within an agency, depending on how the public land is used
and what types of facilities are in place.
\a Used 1995 data because 1996 data were not available.
\b Used 1986 data because 1985 data were not available.
Source: President's budget and agencies' data.
Table II.2
Acreage Managed by Federal Land
Management Agencies, Fiscal Years 1985-
96
(Acres in millions)
Agency 1985 1996 Change
---------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------
Forest Service 191.0 191.6 0.3%
Park Service 79.4 83.2 4.8%
Bureau of Land Management 337.1 264.0 -21.7%
Fish and Wildlife Service 90.0 92.3 2.6%
Corps of Engineers 11.6 11.6\a 0.2%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The same caution that must used in interpreting data on
visitation applies to interpreting data on acreage. Like the
influence of visitation on operating costs, the influence of acreage
may vary greatly. See the note to table II.1.
\a Small decline not shown because of rounding.
Source: President's budget and agencies' data.
Table II.3
Number of Units Within Federal Land
Management Agencies, Fiscal Years 1985-
96
Agency 1985 1996 Change
---------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------
Forest Service 193 185 -4.1%
Park Service 339 374 10.3%
Bureau of Land Management \a \a \a
Fish and Wildlife Service 582 702 20.6%
Corps of Engineers \a \a \a
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Data not available.
Source: President's budget and agencies' data.
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
========================================================= Appendix III
The objectives of our review were to (1) describe the process used by
the Park Service to develop budgets and establish operating
priorities; (2) determine the limitations, if any, of the agency's
priority-setting processes at a sample of parks; (3) determine what,
if any, implications the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) has for the Park Service; (4) provide information on trends in
cutbacks of visitor services at the parks; and (5) compare funding
levels for park operations with those for other federal land
management agency operations.
To determine the process used by the Park Service to establish
operational priorities and any limitations of the process at a sample
of parks, we interviewed Park Service officials at headquarters, at
the four regional offices that oversee the parks included in our
sample, and at the four parks in our sample. We also discussed with
Park Service officials how park priorities are used in developing
budget requests and allocating appropriated funds. We reviewed Park
Service headquarters and regional office directives, guidance, and
practices for identifying operational priorities; Park Service budget
documents; and park planning documents.
We visited four parks: Great Smoky Mountains National Park,
Independence National Historical Park, Olympic National Park, and
Yellowstone National Park. As agreed with your offices, we selected
these four parks because they (1) include large natural and
historical parks, (2) are located in different regions of the
country, and (3) reported several cutbacks in visitor services. We
also limited our review to four parks so that we could respond to
your need for information by early April 1997. Although we cannot
generalize the results of our work to all 374 park units, the parks
selected are among the most visible and notable in the national park
system. Hence, the information collected should provide a meaningful
indication of how the park system establishes operational priorities.
To respond to the third objective, we reviewed GAO documents on
implementing GPRA and interviewed officials at Park Service
headquarters, the four regional offices, and the four parks to
discuss how these parks' processes for establishing operational
priorities relate to GPRA's requirements and to obtain information on
the status of the Park Service's implementation of GPRA. We did not
specifically review the Park Service's processes for implementing
GPRA.
To obtain information on trends in cutbacks in visitor services, we
held discussions with officials from Park Service headquarters, the
four regional offices, and the four parks included in our review and
obtained documentation related to this issue. As agreed with your
offices, we requested trend information for the past 5 years. Also,
because servicewide trend information was not available from Park
Service headquarters, we collected data on cutbacks in visitor
services from the four parks we visited.
With respect to the last objective, we interviewed officials and
obtained budget trend data from the Park Service (NPS), the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and the Forest Service (FS).
As agreed with your offices, we obtained budget data for fiscal years
1985 through 1997. The budget data consisted of gross obligations
for the operations and maintenance accounts of each agency.\13 We
adjusted the obligations data for inflation by using the Gross
Domestic Product implicit price deflator developed by the Department
of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis. We then compared the
inflation-adjusted change in the Park Service's obligations over this
period with the similarly adjusted changes in the obligations of the
other federal land management agencies. We also obtained information
that would provide an indication of the growth in the numbers of
public visits, acres, and units managed by these agencies.
--------------------
\13 The budget accounts used were as follows: FS--National Forest
System (12-1106); NPS--Operation of the National Park Service
(14-1036); BLM--Management of Lands and Resources (14-1109) and
Oregon and California Land Grants (14-1116); FWS--Resource Management
(14-1611); and COE--Operations and Maintenance, General (96-3123).
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix IV
RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
Cliff Fowler
Walter J. Hess
Frank Kovalak
Ned H. Woodward
ACCOUNTING AND INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT DIVISION
Elizabeth H. Curda
Michael J. Curro
SEATTLE REGIONAL OFFICE
Brent Hutchison
Paul Staley
*** End of document. ***